Remember... four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.DON'T LIKE GUNS? DON'T BUY ONE! There, now wasn't that easy?Background Checks? Good idea Barack'O, let's start with you!

Efficient Gun Control that makes sense. In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States . In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States , who later died from the wound.In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States . In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States . In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States . In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant. In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office. In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office. In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria. In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory. In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service. In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US . In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant. In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech. In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others. In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people. In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis . In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school. In 2013 (Sept.) an angry Democrat shoots 12 at a Navy ship yard.One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

No NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservatives are involved.

SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.

Best idea I've heard to date....remember, it's the Democrats that are making all the fuss about 'Gun Control'.

Subject: Places not to go.I HOPE THIS HELPS STOP THE GUN PROTEST PEOPLE.Places not to go....I was surprised at how Violent the US Virgin Islands and other Caribbean tourist destinations are!! But if you’re in a hurry just scroll down because it takes a whole minute to read this. BUT TRUST ME ! YOU SHOULD READ THIS !

The United States 4.2 !!!!!!!!!!!! ALL (109) of the countries above America have 100% gun bans.

It might be of interest to note that SWITZERLAND (not shown on this list) has NO MURDER OCCURRENCE!However, SWITZERLAND'S law requires that EVERYONE: 1. Own a Gun. 2. Maintain Marksman qualifications....regularly.

Why do we never hear about this?....our beloved media and corrupt politicians.

Hey all you liberals out there....pay attention!THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU MIGHT THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wonder who in Washington is supposed to keep up with all the laws that have been passed (and ignored) throughout the years?

The BILL was passed back in 1902 and grants full rights to anyone who wants to own as many guns as they can afford. Any movement to limit guns or magazines will be in direct violation of this law. Pass it around.

IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS COUNTING ON THE FACT THAT THE AMERICAN CITIZENS DON'T KNOW THIS, THEIR RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTION. DON'T PROVE THEM RIGHT.

THE DICK ACT OF 1902 ALSO KNOWN AS THE EFFICIENCY OF MILITIA BILL H.R. 11654 OF JUNE 28, 1902 and INVALIDATES ALL SO-CALLED GUN-CONTROL LAWS.

It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the:The organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia.The unorganized militia.And the regular army.

The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45.All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion).These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

I'm not so sure the current administration KNOWS what the laws, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence say. But it doesn't matter to them anyway. He and his minions certainly don't have any respect for them or us and will continue to do whatever they can get away with to further their cause of gaining complete control

Charles William Frederick Dick (November 3, 1858 - March 13, 1945) was a Republican politician from Ohio. He served in the United States House of Representatives and U.S. Senate.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) cannot be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country. The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA , and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States ." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise andmaintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."The Honorable William GordonCongressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917

I checked this out. It ACTUALLY IS the law of the land

Obama was put in office by the elite for a reason and the court case is here for a reason. This is all a script because the elite have an agenda. Watch as this continues to unfold and divide the nation and keep in mind that it was scripted this way.

As the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the Chicago, IL Gun Ban, this man offered you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine), that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.

Interesting take and one you don't hear much. . . . . .

Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter....

"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception.

Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on an equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats.

The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat. It has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence• 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?

• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:

• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple: Taking away guns gives control to governments.

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarming the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."

Remember, when it comes to "gun control", the frightening word is “control", not “gun"!